Bonilla v. All Reviewing Courts
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se civil action filed by an incarcerated plaintiff who failed to pay the required filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and granted the plaintiff 30 days to pay the fee or file a proper IFP motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis.“DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failure to pay the $400 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a)” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally correct under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and § 1915(a). The order correctly identifies that a civil action cannot proceed without the filing fee or a granted IFP motion. The court provided a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect by allowing time to pay or file the motion, which aligns with standard district court practice for pro se litigants. |
Granting of 30 days leave to prepay the filing fee or file a Motion to Proceed IFP.“GRANTS Plaintiff thirty (30) days leave from the date this Order is filed to: (a) prepay the entire $400 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to allow the plaintiff a chance to cure the procedural defect. This is a standard administrative measure to ensure due process for pro se litigants who may have overlooked the fee requirement or the IFP procedure. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the statutory requirements for filing fees and IFP status. The court cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the necessity of IFP status for proceeding without prepayment and the PLRA's installment payment requirements for prisoners. The dismissal without prejudice and the grant of time to cure are standard and appropriate remedies for this procedural deficiency. There is a minor internal inconsistency where the main order grants 30 days, but the 'Further Ordered' section states the action will remain dismissed if the plaintiff fails to act within 45 days. However, this does not affect the validity of the initial ruling or the legal reasoning.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 3:20-cv-01152-LAB-BLM STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA 12 J-48500, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 13 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff, FOR FAILING TO PAY 14 v. FILING FEE REQUIRED 15 BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR ALL REVIEWING COURTS, FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED 16 Defendants. IN FORMA PAUPERIS 17 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 18 19 20 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at San Quentin 21 State Prison located in San Quentin, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil 22 action (ECF No. 1). 23 I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 25 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 26 27 1 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 2 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 4 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the Plaintiff is a prisoner, and 5 even if he is granted leave to commence his suit IFP, he remains obligated to pay the 6 entire filing fee in “increments,” see Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 7 2015), regardless of whether his case is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) 8 & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to 10 commence this civil action, nor has he submitted a properly supported Motion to Proceed 11 IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, his case cannot yet proceed. See 28 12 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. 13 II. Conclusion and Order 14 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 15 (1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failure to pay the 16 $400 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 17 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a); and 18 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff thirty (30) days leave from the date this Order is filed 19 to: (a) prepay the entire $400 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete 20 and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust account 21 statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). 23 24 25 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $50. 26 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2014). The additional $50 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to 27 proceed IFP. Id. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff 2 || with this Court’s approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to 3 || Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $400 civil filing fee or 4 ||complete and submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action will 5 ||remain dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. 6 || $ 1914(a)’s fee requirements and without further Order of the Court. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: June 29, 2020 ( di A ( Bunny 9 Hon. Latry Alan Burns 10 Chief United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Cites, in this corpus
- Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo 13-56004 · 2015-01-07